Archive for the 'Environmentalism' Category

A long post about PCRM, veganism and gettin’ evangelical

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 16, 2007
in Animal Rights, Body, Environmentalism, Food, Science, Traveling and Veganism
. 23 Comments

My prayers this morning go out to all those affected by the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy. I have a few Hokie alumni in my family (though far more who went to UVA), and I know a couple of folks still closely associated with the Blacksburg campus. I know that several of my readers are Hokies, and my thoughts and prayers are especially directed towards them.

It’s spring break (Pasadena City College has what must be America’s latest spring break), and I’m in our little study at home. I was in Virginia yesterday, if driving from the District to Dulles in a downpour can be considered being “in Virginia”. (We did find some great vegan Ethiopian food in a little strip mall in Ballston.) My wife and I spent the weekend in Washington attending the Art of Compassion gala to raise money for and celebrate the accomplishments of one of our very favorite charities, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

What I love about PCRM is that more than any other animal rights outfit, they adopt a holistic approach to personal and global transformation. PCRM is one of the leading organizations advocating vegan diets for all. Backed by a growing network of hundreds of doctors and nutritionists across the USA and Canada, PCRM is reaching out to millions through increasingly savvy media campaigns. (My wife and I are particularly pleased with — and particularly interested in supporting — PCRM’s brand-spankin’ new Spanish-language campaign.) PCRM also campaigns against the use of animals in medical research, and has played a leading role in developing alternatives. (PCRM helped create “Digital Frog” to help end school dissections; they’ve helped popularize TraumaMan to replace the use of live animals in emergency medical education.)

Most animal rights organizations — and Lord knows, they all do fabulous work — want to save animals. The folks who run PCRM, led by the remarkably energetic and charismatic Dr. Neal Barnard, want to do the same. But saving animals is about more than stopping a seal hunt, or shutting down a few fur farms or puppy mills. (All very worthy causes, mind.) PCRM’s point is that what is good for animals is also good for us and for our planet. A balanced vegan regimen requires far fewer natural resources to produce than a meat-and-dairy laden one. And the health benefits of veganism (or even its softer form, lacto-ovo vegetarianism) are sufficiently well-demonstrated as to be nigh on undeniable.

The world says: “Children need milk to build strong bones”. The world says “Beef is the best source of iron and protein, especially for women.” The world says “Without animal research, we can’t make necessary medical breakthroughs.” The world says “A vegetarian or vegan diet is too boring, too miserable, and too time-consuming for the average modern person.” And carefully, with painstakingly documented research, PCRM works to disprove all of these deeply-held myths. (PCRM helped expose the roots of the Vioxx tragedy: what had proved safe in animals turned out deadly for humans. Animal testing too often makes animals suffer and tells us nothing about what works for people.)

Sigh. This post is turning into an infomercial. That’s not what this blog is supposed to be about, and I apologize. This is how I feel after retreat weekends with my youth group, or after a men- against-rape training. I feel inspired and invigorated, and more than usually evangelical!

Last month, Stentor at Debitage put up this post: Moral Relativist Anti-Vegetarianism. Stentor, a trained amateur philosopher, has pointed out more than once that I have an exasperating habit of making sweeping moral statements — and promptly disavowing the idea that I am actually proselytizing, claiming at times that “this is just me.” He’s right. The truth is that a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle almost always is about making a universal moral claim. Stentor writes:

So what makes vegetarianism especially threatening whereas diversity in other parts of life evokes less hostility? One inescapable part of the picture — which unfortunately vegetarians spend a lot of time disclaiming in a usually futile effort to avoid the proselytizing charge — is that vegetarianism is a moral position. Aside from the small number of people who are vegetarians purely for health or henotheistic religious reasons, to become a vegetarian is to implicitly endorse a non-relativistic moral code*. Second, vegetarianism is threatening – becoming a vegetarian involves a significant change in a fairly fundamental part of one’s lifestyle. Third, vegetarianism is realistic. For all the joking about how life wouldn’t be worth living without bacon, vegetarianism is within reach of the majority of developed world adults. (It’s not without hardships for some, and I’m not endorsing a purely personal-lifestyle-change-based policy, but the fact remains that most North Americans could drastically reduce their meat consumption if they really put their minds to it.) Adding to the realism is the surface plausibility of the vegetarian position — it’s comparatively easy for even a committed omnivore to understand what makes vegetarians think they’re right. Bold emphasis is mine.

Stentor is frequently right, and here, he’s dead on. I realize that on this blog, I write about many things: diet, feminism, faith, exercise. As a progressive evangelical writing for a general audience, I’ve deliberately disavowed Christian proselytizing in this space. Do I wish more people would pursue a personal, transforming relationship with Christ? Yes. Do I believe that no one can be saved without consciously forming that relationship? No, I don’t. Do I wish more people — especially men — would embrace feminist principles of egalitarianism in every aspect of their public and private lives? Yes. Do I want every man (and woman) to stop using porn, to stop objectifying women, to stop the economic, sexual, and physical exploitation of their sisters? Yes.

So the question I’m wrestling with is this: does my veganism correlate more closely with my feminism or my Christianity? If it’s like my Christian faith, it’s a “personal choice” — one among many. I do believe that my Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, animist, and atheist friends will be saved (though how, exactly, is not something I can always articulate.) I do believe that I am called to follow Christ, but I also believe that others follow Him even as they call Him by other names. What would make the world a far better place isn’t necessarily everyone becoming Christian; what would make the world a far better place is if everyone actually lived out the principles of their faiths and creeds. But if every man and woman on this planet saw women as equally worthy of dignity and respect, as equally entitled to share in resources and in decision-making, as equally prepared to lead, as equally deserving of being seen as a whole person — then heck yes, the planet would be better off. Feminism is, in that sense, essential.


And I’m prepared to start arguing that vegetarianism (or better yet, veganism) has the power to bring about tremendous change. It will improve the health of the individual and of the planet, and it will exponentially reduce the unnecessary suffering of sentient, conscious creatures. So yes, I’m going to risk alienating still more readers with a more explicit commitment to veganism here on this blog.

In the end, I’m trying to follow ever more closely Forster’s maxim: “only connect.” What I wear matters. What I eat matters. Everything we do connects us to other living creatures. Every darned thing I do every day matters. And my brothers and sisters, the same does go for you too. Every dollar you spend is a vote. The food you buy, the clothes you wear, the words you speak: these impact the world. And I’m asking you to consider making the best possible choices in your public, private, educational, familial, sexual, and economic lives.

My commitment to full veganism is relatively recent (I’ve been a vegetarian for longer.) It’s been a slow evolution rather than an instant decision. Like most lasting conversions, it has come gradually rather than in a flash of light. But you’re gonna be hearing more on this blog about animal rights, veganism, and how they connect to faith and feminism.

More about my PCRM weekend below the fold. Continue reading ‘A long post about PCRM, veganism and gettin’ evangelical’

A musing on ecology and transformation

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 7, 2006
in Animal Rights and Environmentalism
. 8 Comments

Stentor writes of me yesterday:

In short, Hugo Schwyzer would make the most anti-environmental Deep Ecologist ever.

That caught my attention. Actually, it’s part of a really interesting post (as are most of Stentor’s) on the conflict inherent in the world view of folks like me. I’m at once a self-proclaimed environmentalist who claims to love nature, but at the same time am relentless about wanting to transform and overcome the darker aspects of my own nature. I want to preserve and protect wild animals and wild spaces, while all the while working to tame and discipline my own flesh, my own behavior, even my own thoughts.

I’m a fourth-generation Sierra Clubber. When asked on surveys what the most important political issue to me is, I invariably check the box for the “environment.” Nothing seems more vital to me than protecting our natural resources, and allowing “wildness” to flourish. That world view, closely linked to my reflexive insistence on the dignity and worth of animals, is born of experience and reflection. It was bequeathed to me by my family, and by growing up in beautiful spaces — the rolling hills around Mission Peak, in Carmel by-the-Sea, in Santa Barbara. My favorite poet, both as a child and now, remains the vaguely misanthropic, vaguely pagan, Robinson Jeffers. I grew up half a mile from his little tower on Carmel Point, and share more than a few of his views.

I suppose I reconcile this apparent contradiction (leave nature alone, work to endlessly better myself and others) with a belief about free will. Animals don’t appear to have free will, and neither do plants. Humans do. While this doesn’t make humans intrinsically more valuable than animals, it does bestow on us a special responsibility — and that, it seems to me, is the responsibility to love, to care, to share. It is also the requirement to change those aspects of ourselves that block us from connecting with nature, with our fellow creatures, and with God. Our dominion over the natural world, made clear at the beginning of Genesis, is a mandate for gentle, just stewardship. We are called to eradicate within ourselves those aspects of our character that conflict with that mandate, and because we have free will and grace we can succeed in accomplishing this great transformation.

Those who want to pave over the earth and exploit its natural resources, it seems, have misdirected wills. The desire to “develop” and transform is a good one — but it ought to be directed inward, not outward. A developer and I can look at the same landscape of rolling hills, and he can imagine working hard to put in a row of tract homes; I look across it and imagine conquering it on a long trail run. He wants to change nature, and I want to use nature to measure my own change. There’s a distinction there, and it’s one that matters.

California election endorsements, part two: the propositions: UPDATED

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 23, 2006
in Environmentalism, Politics, Sexuality, Sports and Youth
. 51 Comments

Last week, I blogged my endorsements for the statewide offices for the California general election on November 7.  Today, as promised, I’ll post my endorsements for the 13 propositions on the California ballot.  Props I feel strongly about are in CAPS.  For a list of all props, visit here.

Prop 1A: No.  (Would prevent the use of gasoline taxes for anything other than highway work; would bind the legislature.)

Props 1B-1E: Yes.   This is part of the governor’s package to rebuild infrastructure. It’s not a perfect plan, but it’s bold enough and it’s absolutely needed.

Prop 83: NO!  Would make it impossible for registered sex offenders to reintegrate into society — a cruel, expensive response to a media-manufactured hysteria.  It will pass by a 2-1 margin, but the majority will not be right.

Prop 84: Yes.  Improves water quality, backed by the major environmental groups to which I contribute and which I generally trust.

Prop 85:  NO!  For my reasons why, read my post about prop 73 from last year.   I’m strongly opposed to parental notification laws; having worked with scared and pregnant teens as a youth minister has only made me more passionate on the subject.

Prop 86: Yes.  I’ve never met a tax on consumption I didn’t like.  Yes, it will disproportionately hit poor smokers. It will also ask a powerful disincentive, as previous tax hikes already have.

Prop 87:  YES!  I am sure it won’t pass, but this bold initiative to tax oil company profits to fund alternative energy sources is a terrific idea.

Prop 88:  Yes.  I like property taxes that pay for education.    Basing taxes on value is reasonably progressive, too.

Prop 89: Yes.

Prop 90: No.

Bonus endorsement:

City of Pasadena Proposition A: NO!!!  (This is a referendum on the NFL putting an expansion team in the Rose Bowl.  Pro football is the last thing we need in this town.)

My predictions: voters in California will be surprisingly conservative.  I predict most of these won’t go my way. I’m especially worried about the passage of 85, and saddened about 83 (about which I will post more).  I have a small quixotic hope that 87 will get through, but suspect that the huge ad buys by Chevron will prove too powerful.

UPDATE: FlashReport, the far-right California political news website, just issued its ballot endorsements.  Without mutual coordination, we’ve managed to take diametrically opposed stances on all thirteen initiatives.  Perhaps in the future, I won’t read the ballot pamphlet, but simply read the lads at FR and know that the opposite of what they support is the correct way to go.

California election endorsements, part one: the statewide offices

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 18, 2006
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism, GLBTQ and Politics
. 10 Comments

So it’s time for my fall California general election endorsements, now that we are a mere twenty days away from the election day itself.  Today I’ll blog the statewide offices; next week I’ll blog the propositions.

Governor: Peter Camejo, Green.

Lieutenant Governor: John Garamendi, Democrat

Attorney General: Jerry Brown, Democrat

Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, Republican

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer, Democrat

Secretary of State: Bruce McPherson, Republican

Controller: John Chiang, Democrat

Some explanations are obviously in order.

I’m not voting for either Arnold Schwarzenegger or his Democratic challenger, Phil Angelides.  I was disgusted by Angelides’ nasty primary campaign to the point that he lost my support.  And if Arnold were truly a right-wing Republican, I would hold my nose and vote for Angelides regardless.  But given that on the issues I care most about (the environment, animal rights, higher ed funding, women’s rights, gay rights) Arnold has been reasonably decent, I see no reason not to vote my conscience and cast a ballot for Peter Camejo of the Green Party.  When I get around to it, I’m re-registering as a Green anyway.

As for the down ballot races, I’m endorsing two Republicans and four Democrats.  The four Democrats I’m endorsing are all progressives running against staunch conservatives.  In the races for Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Treasurer and Attorney General there are clear and obvious ideological divides between the two major party candidates.  John Garamendi was my choice in the primary for Lieutenant Governor, and he’s running against a man I both admire and fear: the ueber-ideologue of the California right, Tom McClintock.  McClintock is a man of impeccable personal integrity, straight-forward candor, and unyielding right-wing views.  Most of my conservative friends wish he were running for the state’s top job, as most of them have been quite disappointed by Schwarzenegger’s tack to the left on a host of issues.  Given that both McClintock and Garamendi have higher ambitions, it’s vital for liberals that we cut this dangerous (if honorable) foe off at the pass now.

I’m also a huge Jerry Brown fan.  I’ve been a fan of his since I was seven years old.  I wore a Brown for Governor pin in the fall of 1974, when he was younger than I am now and was the wunderkind of California politics.  I’ve followed his story with fascination and a sense of kinship, as he has worked with Mother Theresa in Calcutta, spent time in Buddhist monasteries, and finally gotten married (for the first time) in his sixties.  There are second and third and fourth acts in American politics, and Jerry Brown would make a magnificent attorney general.

As for the two Republicans I’ve endorsed, I’ve done so for different reasons.  Unlike the other candidates from their party, McPherson and Poizner are environmentally-concerned social moderates.  Indeed, McPherson (who represented my hometown of Carmel in the state senate for years) had the endorsement of the Sierra Club, something rarely given to any member of the GOP these days.  He’s pro-choice, pro-gay rights, the sort of politician that the cave-dwelling troglodytes tend to call a RINO (Republican in Name Only).   Though his Democratic opponent, Debra Bowen, is an excellent candidate as well, McPherson gets the nod from me based on his tremendous track record and for his willingness to consistently buck his own party.

On the other hand, the Democratic candidate for Insurance Commissioner, Cruz Bustamante, is a disaster.  Reversing the stereotype, he is the one who has taken loads of money from the insurance industry, while Poizner has kept his distance from those he might soon be regulating.  Poizner is a self-made Silicon Valley multi-millionaire with an inventive mind, an independent spirit, and progressive social views.   Like McPherson, he represents the kind of Republican I’d like to see more of.  He’s the kind of Republican my family supported throughout the twentieth century: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, committed to conservation as a basic principle of conservatism.  By voting for McPherson and Poizner, while voting against the right-wing ideologues who are running for other offices, I’m suggesting we send a message about what kind of GOP candidates might be viable in our Golden State.

Saving the little one: a note on starlings and tikkun olam

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 16, 2006
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism and Faith
. 8 Comments

Even before Matilde’s death on Sunday morning, I’d been planning to blog about animals and responsibility this week.  Last month, a number of us in the blogosphere were moved by Chris Clarke’s experience with a helpless baby squirrel he discovered on a hike.  Chris celebrated the little creature’s life with a fine poem, and explains eloquently why he chose to leave it to near-certain death rather than attempting a rescue.

Stentor Danielson, whose blog is one of the best in the ’sphere on matters environmental, made a powerful case that Clarke (and others in his situation) should intervene to help an injured wild animal, without worrying about "interfering with nature".  Stentor writes:

Who among us would leave a human injured by a natural disaster to die, reasoning that we shouldn’t interfere with nature? Why, then, treat a suffering non-human differently than a suffering human?

One might point out, rightly, that there’s no such thing as a purely natural disaster. But there are disasters that are not purely social, and I would doubt that we can make our degree of responsibility for hurricane victims proportional to the share of the blame that human activities hold. And even so, it’s strange to claim that there purely natural disasters claim no human victims, or that we should care only for the human victims of human-caused disasters.

Our moral obligation is not just to right the wrongs that we (individually or collectively) are responsible or blameable for. Our moral obligation is to relieve suffering, regardless of what the cause is.

Saturday night, just twelve hours before Matilde passed, my wife and I were taking a walk with my two younger sisters in Santa Barbara.  Since my Dad received his terminal diagnosis in April, we’ve been spending most of our weekends up in the town of my birth.  It was near dusk when the four of us came across a small fledgling starling hopping along the sidewalk.  At first we thought it was a small bird with a broken wing, but on closer investigation realized it was a little one still too young to fly; he presumably fell (or was pushed) from a nest.  We looked around carefully — there was no sign of a nest (or anxious parent birds) anywhere nearby.

One of my sisters (who reads this blog and remembered my post about Chris and the squirrel) suggested gently we leave the bird alone and let "nature take its course."  My sister is not a cruel person in the slightest; her environmentalism is simply closer to Chris Clarke’s.  But my wife and I, overcome as we usually are by sentiment and compassion, made a different choice.  I raced back to the house for the car and a phone book, while my wife carefully guarded the evidently frightened and exhausted little creature.

We called a 24-hour vet and were quickly directed to our new favorite charity (besides Matilde’s Mission, of course!) : The Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network.  We called ‘em, dropped by, and within half an hour our little rescue was in a safe place with half a dozen other birds who had been found in similar situations. (Here is their suggestion page for wild bird emergencies.)  We were assured we had done the right thing — given that our little friend was unable to fly, he would surely have been a meal for some domestic animal very quickly.

If we had been on safari in the African bush in a relatively unspoiled environment, I might have understood not interfering.  But in an urban area already transformed by humans (or even in most local regional parks), there’s no point in pretending that there’s anything "natural" about leaving a helpless creature to be eaten or die of dehydration!  More importantly, I am convinced that God places us in situations where we are given the opportunity to choose whether or not we will help the most vulnerable among us.  Whether it is with the homeless or with the helpless, each encounter offers us a stark choice: will we be agents of God’s mercy or not?

Few serious Christians expect God, acting sovereignly, to solve all earthly problems in an instant.  The healing of the world — what my Jewish and Kabbalist friends call tikkun olam – is also accomplished by God working through human beings.  The Apostle tells us in 1 Corinthians that we are God’s fellow workers, and though it is God who makes all things grow and work out in the end, we are needed to plant seeds and water them.  It’s useless, in other words, to cry out to God about the injustice of injured fledglings; as far as I am concerned, on Saturday night, God sent me and my wife to be His agents in the life of that tiny and vulnerable creature.  What happens to that little bird after we delivered him to the Wildlife Care Network is not in our hands — but whether to intervene or not was.  We did what we did not merely because it felt good, but because the healing of the human and the natural order comes, at least in part, through a billion small actions such as ours.

I am not for a minute trying to impugn the decision that Chris Clarke made to leave behind a baby squirrel.  I understand his reasons, and there is a huge body of modern environmentalist literature that would agree that he did the right thing.  My environmentalist credentials, after all, are suspect: I may be a vegetarian anti-fur activist, but I’ve got more than one pair of leather shoes and I do like to travel around in fuel-guzzling airplanes.  I have to be careful to distinguish an intense sentimental attachment to individual animals from a wiser and broader love for all of creation. 

But just as with my feminism, my environmentalism is a process — a slow deepening of my commitment to nature and a slow intensifying of my ability to empathize and connect with all of His creatures.  One way I measure my growth is by my commitment to those few individual animals God places in front of me.  What happened on Saturday night with the little starling was not all about me, but it was a chance — to give up an hour of my evening in service to creation, or to walk on by and remain absorbed in my (admittedly very pressing) cares.   My wife and I can’t save the world by ourselves in an instant; but when we can play a small part in tikkun olam, I believe we must do so.

By the way, we don’t have a Pasadena equivalent to the Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network…  yet!

A note on “crunchy cons” and feminism

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 17, 2006
in Environmentalism, Faith, Feminism and Politics
. 7 Comments

It’s a cloudy St. Patrick’s morning, and I am very much in the "taper and rest" mode before the marathon.  Tapering is so counter-intutitive; with most big "tests" in life, one studies more in the days leading up to the exam.  With marathoning, one does progressively less and less the closer one gets to the event.  This will be my 13th race of marathon distance or more, and the haunting sensation that all of my fitness is slipping away comes every single time.  I realize I like training for marathons more than I like running the actual races.

I’ve been very slow in responding to the "crunchy con" manifesto that has recently appeared over at the National Review.  Bob Carlton forwarded the manifesto to me yesterday, and the wonderful Russell Arben Fox has been blogging about it regularly.  Many elements of the manifesto resonate with my own progressive Christian, pro-feminist views:

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

10. Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

Well, my first reaction is that it sounds an awful lot like a summary of the work of the marvelous Wendell Berry (particularly #6).  It also sounds very close to the views of many Mennonites I know — with the distinct absence of any reference to pacifism.  And the fact that this "crunchy con" movement is being hosted at the National Review makes me very happy.  Anything in the conservative movement that is explicitly critical of rapacious capitalism and the military-industrial complex is heartening!

I can agree with most of this manifesto, vague as it is.  Indeed, the only points in the manifesto to which I can’t give a hearty amen are the final two, and that’s because with my feminist hat on, I’m mildly suspicious of paeans to the traditional family and the "permanent things."   I’m interested in strengthening extended families and creating human community — so are most feminists and pro-feminists.  But "conserving" the family is too often a code for vigorously opposing non-traditional family arrangements such as same-sex unions; appeals to tradition can also be a club used against single parents (who are usually mothers).  If we take a truly long historical view, of course, we see that the nuclear family (husband, wife, children, living as a discrete unit) is not the only traditional way of arranging the home.  Historians of the family are quick to point out that the "traditional" family is a bit of myth — and if my crunchy con friends will acknowledge that, we’re well on our way to further agreement.

I want so badly to agree unconditionally with point ten!  To the dismay of my Marxist colleagues, I always downplay the importance of class struggle in my feminist narratives.  (Downplay is not the same as "ignore", mind you.)  In encouraging young men and women to do feminist and pro-feminist work, I emphasize the importance of personal commitment and personal choice.  This doesn’t mean an end to political activism.  It does mean this: one’s activism must be built on a solid foundation, and that foundation must be one’s personal character.  Feminism is not merely about struggling for public rights, feminism is about how we live out our own private lives.  Anyone can "talk the talk" in a classroom, or in the street during a march.  But "walking the walk" is about living out the principles in one’s daily life — in the bedroom, in the supermarket, at the family dinner table.   The most important question is not "What do I believe?"  The most important question is "How are my beliefs reflected in my personal choices?"

So, I agree that it is the ancient moral truths that will save us — if by the ancient moral truths, we mean Generosity, Compassion, Empathy, Courage, and a devotion to Justice.   If, however, the ancient moral truths are Submission and endless Self-denial, then I can’t sign on to that.  This doesn’t mean that feminism has to advocate reckless personal behavior!  It does mean that feminism embraces Pleasure and Honesty as equally vital moral truths, as worthy of exaltation and celebration as the older ones.  And above all, feminists insist that both sexes be encouraged to lead their lives according to the same fundamental principles, without the nasty double-standards too often associated with the conservative view of the family.

So many of my own instincts are those of the "crunchy conservative!"  My great-great grandfather, my step great-grandfather, and other relatives helped found the Sierra Club in the 1890s; they were staunch Republicans with a passionate commitment to preserving the natural world.  I’ve grieved the ways in which Republicanism in this country has become a strange mix of intense sexual puritanism, military adventurism, and rampant consumerism — because it’s so fundamentally at odds with the values of an older, more responsible generation of conservatives.  I’m not by any means ready to call myself a "crunchy con"; I have more that I need to read about the "movement."  But the fact that the conversation is happening is exciting, and I am eager to see its progress.

More on the election aftermath, All Saints girls, and the IRS opportunity

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 10, 2005
in Abortion, All Saints Pasadena, Christianity, Environmentalism, Politics, Youth and Youth ministry
. 10 Comments

Several things.

1.  It’s a morning of continued good news; AP reports:

A solid phalanx of Republican moderates drove House GOP leaders to drop a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wilderness area to oil drilling as a sweeping budget bill headed toward a vote Thursday.

A plan to allow states to lift a moratorium on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was also axed.

While the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling plan could still be restored in conference, this is at least a temporary win for environmentalists, and we’ve had precious few of those lately.  Coming on the heels of Tuesday’s results here in the Golden State, I’m feeling more optimistic about my fellow citizens than I have in a while!  Who knew there were any GOP moderates left?  Calloo callay!

2.  Speaking of those who aren’t moderates, I spent some time yesterday afternoon listening to the Paul McGuire radio program.  McGuire is a very conservative, evangelical AM radio talk show host. He and his listeners were frustrated and upset over the special election results Tuesday, particularly the defeat of the parental notification initiative.  Many of his callers bemoaned the "ultra-liberal" electorate, comparing us to the ancient residents of Sodom and Gomorrah (a tired but still-effective rhetorical twist.)  Others were angry that more Christian conservatives hadn’t gone to the polls.  This raises an interesting question — one would think that Prop 73, the abortion initiative, would galvanize religious conservatives and send them to the polls in droves!  So what happened?  Did they not show up, despite the presence of 73 on the ballot?  Or did they show up, but still get walloped by a slightly larger progressive majority?  I am not sure I know the answer yet.

Yes, let’s be honest: sometimes, human nature being what it is, there is pleasure in "gloating"; it’s a rare person decent enough not to take some joy in listening to the discomfiture of one’s political opponents!  But as I listened, I did my best to do so prayerfully, as a fellow Christian — albeit one of a different theology — and to be sympathetic towards those who did not rejoice as I did in Tuesday’s results.  I listen a lot to shows like Paul McGuire’s; I figure it helps me keep a sense of what my far-more-conservative brothers and sisters are thinking.  Besides, Paul regularly leads his listeners in prayer, and I like that — and always, even though I share little if any of his agenda — I join in those prayers.

3.  On a related front, we had youth group last night.  Of course, there was some discussion of Proposition 73.  Several of our teen girls had been sporting "No on 73" buttons or stickers in previous weeks; last night I heard many fervent expressions of thanksgiving and relief for the prop’s narrow defeat.   Most of these girls are the daughters of All Saints members, of course; most All Saints members are in alignment with the church’s publicly pro-choice stance.   But even as the daughters of generally progressive parents, it’s clear that many of them were terrified at the prospect of being compelled to notify mom or dad before receiving an abortion.  These are young women whose parents would, I’m fairly certain, prefer that their daughters choose abortion rather than another option.  Even so, these girls were adamant that they ought to enjoy, even as minors, a right to reproductive privacy.  One girl expressed frank amazement that the measure had lost, saying "I can’t believe that many people really think the way we do; I’m so excited."  I chuckled, and made the usual gentle noises about how much I hoped that most of "my girls" would never be put in the position where they would need to exercise this particular right.  And of course, I stressed once again that if they didn’t feel comfortable talking to their parents, they could reach out to me or another youth minister.  Frankly, talking with these girls last night reminded me of why I had been right to overcome my reservations and vote "no" on 73.

4.  We also talked, not surprisingly, about the whole All Saints/IRS story.  Our rector, Ed Bacon, and our former rector, George Regas, have been on national news programs many times this week; the story of the confrontation between our parish and the Revenue Service over perceived partisanship in a Regas sermon has spread far and wide.  Of course, though all of our kids had some idea of what was going on, not everyone understood the whole idea of non-profit exemptions.  One of our staff members gave a very nice overview of the law, and I’m happy to say I learned a few things I didn’t know.  (For example, I had not realized that tax-exempt churches could take positions on propositions, just not on candidates.)   Once the kids had a fairly solid idea of how the law worked, we moved into discussion.

Many kids were intensely proud of the high profile of All Saints.  I suppose it’s true that we all have a little bit of a martyr complex, especially when our "martyrdom" doesn’t really hurt!  Some kids mentioned that their teachers or classmates had given them grief about belonging to such a liberal church; they told these stories with understandable pride.  But we wanted to do more than just give the kids a chance to say how proud they were of All Saints and how foolish they thought the IRS was.  We wanted them to reflect on many things, ranging from the sometimes high cost of discipleship (we emphasized the risks to All Saints are very real, especially since we have now refused the IRS settlement offer) to the new opportunities this presents.

We talked, of all things, about Ted Haggard and the National Association of Evangelicals.  Both publicly and privately, the conservative NAE has been very supportive of liberal All Saints.  Ted Haggard, president of the nation’s largest conservative Christian organization, was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as expressing support for us:

When Ted Haggard, head of the 30-million-member National Assn. of Evangelicals, heard about the All Saints case Monday, he told his staff to contact the National Council of Churches, a more liberal group.

Haggard said he personally supports the war in Iraq and probably would not agree with much in the Rev. George Regas’ 2004 sermon at All Saints, which was cited by the IRS as the basis for its investigation. But Haggard said he wants to work with the council of churches "in doing whatever it takes to get the IRS to stop" such actions.

"It is a violation of the Constitution for the IRS to threaten that church. It may not be a violation of IRS regulations, but IRS regulations have been wrong," said Haggard, who is pastor of the 12,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

The point we wanted to make to the kids was that they had something in common with their fellow Christians in other churches.  Too often, our All Saints kids grow up believing that more conservative churches are filled with intolerant bigots with whom we share little or nothing.  But we emphasized last night that these folks were reaching out to us, standing with us in our time of need, forming a united front of faith against government intrusion.  Our lead senior high minister asked, "If these churches have reached out to us, how can we reach out to them?" 

One of my long-term goals has been more interaction between "liberal" All Saints kids and the teens at youth groups in much more evangelical churches.  A joint service project followed by a time for friendly dialogue seems like the most promising avenue.  We’ve bandied about the idea of doing this for a long while, but perhaps this new kerfuffle with the IRS (and the national attention it has brought to us) will be the catalyst to get up off our duffs and do something.  I have some contacts in youth ministry at some fairly conservative places ’round town; you know who you are (some of you read my blog.)  Expect a phone call.

Where the money will go

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 9, 2004
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism and Stuff
. 13 Comments

At this time of year, I start to make decisions about which charities to support in 2005.  I’ll state my goal:  in 2005, I want to return to giving at least 10% of gross income away.   Our Kind of People generally don’t talk about money, and I’m not naming actual dollar amounts — but it is important, I think, to talk in this Christmas season about which organizations we choose to support.

I do believe God is calling me to tithe.  I suspect (with some fear and trembling) that He might actually want me to give well above that 10% barrier.  But I am not sure I am called to give all of that tithe directly to one church.   Particularly at All Saints Pasadena,  there is a widespread belief that the parish ought to be the primary recipient of one’s giving, but not the only one.

I’ve made my pledge to All Saints for 2005.  But next year, I am committed to supporting the following with regular, planned giving in various amounts; in different ways, these organizations reflect my passions and priorities:

Mennonite Mission Network (two friends from PMC are missionaries in China)

D.E.L.T.A. Rescue (Dedication and Everlasting Love to Animals; the world’s largest no-kill shelter, located in nearby Glendale)

The Bunny Bunch (An Orange County-based organization that primarily rescues rabbits, but does rescue and place chinnies.  Check out chinnies to adopt here.)

The Mary Magdalene Project (Los Angeles-based organization working to turn around the lives of women who have been trapped in the sex industry)

KPCC FM (The local NPR affiliate, and what is usually on when I listen to radio)

World Vision (Presumably, no explanation required)

Sierra Club (Still, in my mind,  the premier environmental organization in America; as a sixth-generation Californian and a trail runner, how can I not?)

Is the Bunny Bunch as worthy as World Vision and the Sierra Club?  Is saving chinchillas as important as saving street prostitutes and old-growth forests?  Is public radio as important as helping to ameliorate the crisis in Sudan? Is sending missionaries to unreached folks in China really a cause a good progressive Christian should even support?  I’ve wrestled with all these questions.  Next year, I may make different decisions and choose different priorities.  But for ‘05, I am choosing these.

Regardless of amounts, what will you be supporting in ‘05?  What causes have a grip on your heart?

Tired Legs

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 31, 2004
in Athletics and Fitness and Environmentalism
. Closed

We did a tough 19-mile trail run this morning in the San Gabriels, and my legs are tired, and I am happy..

I have learned to laugh when folks complain that Los Angeles is a concrete jungle; every weekend (and often during the week), a few friends and I can delight in wilderness, far from the “madding crowds” of the city below. I am so grateful to God for the beauty of His creation. I am grateful to have the strength of my legs and my heart to run so far. I am grateful to my country, too, that it has seen fit to preserve at least some of its open spaces. Hurrah for the Forest Service.